A trend away from "squarish" lenses...?

Is it me or is there a trent with glasses today away from a "squarish"
or rectangular lens?

It just seems, whether or not your looking for OTC reading glasses or
even shades that more and more glasses have "rounded" styles of
lenses.

Is this because rectangular lenses don't sell as well or is there
something I don't know about face "shapes" that enters into the
equation?

Thank you

NJA

In article
<c6f359dc-b510-4040-8073-(E-Mail Removed)>,
NJ_Annie <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Is this because rectangular lenses don't sell as well or is there
> something I don't know about face "shapes" that enters into the
> equation?

Pick the shape that looks best on your face. Don't bend to fashion.

--
Charles

Thanks... Yes, but the thing is, it "seems" there aren't as many of
these "squarish" type glasses around anymore to choose from.
Unless... I'm just looking in the wrong places. <gr>

Thanks

NJA

In article
<c6f359dc-b510-4040-8073-(E-Mail Removed)>,
NJ_Annie <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Is it me or is there a trent with glasses today away from a "squarish"
> or rectangular lens?
>
> It just seems, whether or not your looking for OTC reading glasses or
> even shades that more and more glasses have "rounded" styles of
> lenses.
>
> Is this because rectangular lenses don't sell as well or is there
> something I don't know about face "shapes" that enters into the
> equation?

I'm just as happy. The combination of a strong minus prescription, big
lenses and "corners" makes for very thick glasses on those corners. I
had a pair (very expensive) that was pretty much unwearable.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA
(E-Mail Removed)

"NJ_Annie" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:c6f359dc-b510-4040-8073-(E-Mail Removed)...
> Is it me or is there a trent with glasses today away from a "squarish"
> or rectangular lens?
>
> It just seems, whether or not your looking for OTC reading glasses or
> even shades that more and more glasses have "rounded" styles of
> lenses.
>
> Is this because rectangular lenses don't sell as well or is there
> something I don't know about face "shapes" that enters into the
> equation?
>
> Thank you
>
> NJA

There are some optical advantages to having rounded lenses (depending on how
large the finished lens is), but that has never stopped most people from
making the decision based on fashion. Obviously, it is all driven by frame
designs. But there are often technological advancements in the lenses
themselves that sometimes make changes in fashion possible (such as
progressive lenses that can be used in very short fitting height frames).

I don't know if you are aware, but all lenses start out as round before they
are cut to fit in a frame.

In article
<b91a4941-4df1-4a36-b344-(E-Mail Removed)>,
NJ_Annie <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Thanks... Yes, but the thing is, it "seems" there aren't as many of
> these "squarish" type glasses around anymore to choose from.
> Unless... I'm just looking in the wrong places. <gr>

I just purchased a new pair of glasses and found all kinds of styles. I
happened to get rectangular because I thought they looked best. There
seemed to be plenty of squarish and rectangular styles in the shops
around here. I saw rounded styles too. Some of the shops may favor
certain styles and brands on display but have other frames in cabinets
they can bring for you to try on. The pair I bought was not on display,
but the optician brought them out when she saw the styles I was trying
on.

--
Charles

In article
<dabel-(E-Mail Removed)>, Dan
Abel <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> I'm just as happy. The combination of a strong minus prescription, big
> lenses and "corners" makes for very thick glasses on those corners. I
> had a pair (very expensive) that was pretty much unwearable.

Ones prescription should certainly be taken into account. All the
opticians looked at my prescription before I started trying on frames.

--
Charles

In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
"Mike Tyner" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> It works slightly different for near-vs-farsighted, but the overall
> thickness is predicted by the largest diameter you can measure in a given
> frame.
>
> With a squarish frame, you can measure increased width across the diagonals.
> If the lens is for nearsightedness, that extra thickness shows up in the
> corners. If the lens is for farsightedness, it affects thickness in the
> center. But square frames require more thickness than equivalent round
> frames, always. And sometimes designers like to spit in the face of physical
> limitations.

Then there is astigmatism. I think that's what killed me. The -10D was
bad enough, but then add 1.75D of astigmatism and they were pretty
darned thick.

In some sense they did work. When the eye doctor asked me about them, I
said they were unwearable, so he scheduled me for cataract surgery. I
was actually wearing contacts 14X7, and mostly wanted glasses for the
few hours between the time I took my contacts out and when I went to
bed. I also wanted them as backup if I had problems with the contacts
(which I never did, fortunately).

> I sometimes wonder if the designers actually wear glasses at all...

I suspect that both designers and models, if they normally wear glasses
at all, have less than 2 diopters of correction. It just doesn't matter
to them.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA
(E-Mail Removed)